this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2025
761 points (100.0% liked)
Programmer Humor
21988 readers
1215 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's wrong with graphql over a web socket? Graphql doesn't necessitate http or any other transport method, it can be done via pigeons. Graphql has zero control over how http works when you use graphql over http, it doesn't force implementors to use http at all
Aww a whole new generation of devs get to make the same mistakes SOAP made. Makes me feel all fuzzy inside.
I used SOAP in my first web dev job over a decade ago when I was making flight search software and connecting to horrific APIs owned by the airline industry to get flight details and purchase tickets. Why are these two things even remotely the same? It's closer to SQL than SOAP, and I'd choose graphql over any soap api. I still wouldn't do it over http if I could avoid it though.
Meanwhile, in the real world...
Then complain to Apollo or whoever created the server, not the graphql spec. I've used graphql over a web socket on production apps for almost a decade now. I don't use http for graphql if I can avoid it and I always have been able to.